Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

CVF Construction

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
Collapse
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Geoff_B
    Rank 5 Registered User
    • Jul 2010
    • 507

    Nah thats just their earlier 1/1250 scale model they produced for somebody else. The 1/700 CVF should be quite good as it has had support from the Carrier Alliance so should be pretty accurate and detailed.

    Cheers

    Geoff

    Comment

    • pilatus
      Rank 5 Registered User
      • Jun 2005
      • 742

      News relating to the carriers. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11556770

      edit, sorry just noticed this link on the mod cuts thread too.
      visit www.irishairpics.com

      Comment

      • Geoff_B
        Rank 5 Registered User
        • Jul 2010
        • 507

        Well with the Defence Review due tomorrow we should finally get to hear what the governments plans are for the CVF carriers, and their airgroup.

        Indications from Fox & Osbourne appear to show that both will eventually be completed as aircraft carriers and one won't be down graded into a lesser LPH as had been mentioned. Fox also has implied that F-35B and STOVL was actually the wrong choice for the CVF/JCA program and a CATOBAR solution would be preferred for closer interaction with the USN & MN carriers so does this mean they will definatley be switched to CATOBAR ?

        The Harriers are also mooted to be retired early leaving the CVS as LPH and CVF QE without any potential fixed wing aircraft on completion which appeared to stir up the press yesterday, although actual timelines for these things should really be taken into account before people jump to the wrong conclusions.

        Now a question, will they carry on building QE as per the existing plans avec Skijump, or will they complete her flush decked possibly with the Angled deck and catapult tracks laid out but not fitted ?
        Just wondered as being first of class she will be required to do a fair stint on builders sea trials and first of class sea trials to ensure the design is good, the build is sound and the ship meets her performance requirements. That way any urgent changes can be incorporated into PoW whilst still in build.
        In effect even if completed in 2016 it will still be 2018 before she would be ready for actual aircraft operations anyway !

        Fox also implied yesterday on the telly that they may procure an interim aircraft whilst awaiting F-35 deliveries to train crews in fast jet carrier aircraft and possibly provide a token airgroup when the carriers first start their carrier qualifications.

        One thing if the design is to be changed, the RN, BAE and the Carrier Alliance are going to have to produce new artwork, cgi and videos to replace all the STOVL based versions they currently use to promote the carriers :diablo:

        G

        Comment

        • Liger30
          Armed Forces supporter
          • Jul 2010
          • 901

          Fox also implied yesterday on the telly that they may procure an interim aircraft whilst awaiting F-35 deliveries to train crews in fast jet carrier aircraft and possibly provide a token airgroup when the carriers first start their carrier qualifications.
          I so do not believe that.
          I guess at the most the UK will beg the US Marines, Spain and Italy to once more deploy their Harriers on HMS Lusty in exercise as it was done already so humiliatingly often when the "unfit for the job" Harriers were used by the RAF from 2002 to 2009 in Afghanistan while Tornados kept playing games back at home in the UK.

          Weird that the RAF now cries about the limits of the Harriers after years and years of sterling service in theatre and so many happy reports from troops all too glad to have Harriers at close call nearby.
          What were all the Tornados doing back then, if the RAF favored them for the role...?

          Also, now that the RAF wants to save Tornado, the stated desire to deploy Typhoon in Afghanistan in their place in 2011 has VANISHED.
          Good job RAF! Not "junior" service, but CHILDISH service. Everything is fair in order to see the Fleet Air Arm without jets.
          "It is upon the navy under the providence of God that the safety, honour and welfare of this realm do chiefly attend." - King Charles II

          Comment

          • nocutstoRAF
            Rank 5 Registered User
            • May 2010
            • 954

            Is there enough slack in the USN to lease a squadron of Hornets or Super Hornets? Or are they suggesting that the RN might get a carrier based trainer, maybe an updated Goshawk design?

            I also read yesterday (I think on PRUNE or ARRSE) that they now think Afghanistan would be to dusty for the Typhoons and operating them would be detrimental the life of their engines.
            If having a little knowledge is dangerous then I must be bloody deadly

            Comment

            • Liger30
              Armed Forces supporter
              • Jul 2010
              • 901

              I also read yesterday (I think on PRUNE or ARRSE) that they now think Afghanistan would be to dusty for the Typhoons and operating them would be detrimental the life of their engines.
              This is all too evident! Deployment of course will take a tool on machines and engines, but they were bought EXACTLY for that work.
              Engines are made to be replaced, and Typhoon was tested in Extreme Hot (Oman) and Extreme Cold (Norwey) locations alike with excellent results.
              Of course you won't consume the planes if you don't use them, but this is no justification.

              Is there enough slack in the USN to lease a squadron of Hornets or Super Hornets?
              Answer: no. The USN is short on F18, and had to order 124 new ones recently to ensure it has planes until the F35C enters service. So no, they don't have planes they can lease.
              Then again, the UK would be able to use them on carriers only in 2018 anyway, and at that point it makes no sense.
              What the UK can do is send pilots in the US training on carrier ops with the USN (already doing it it seems from the rumours) and then SPEND EVERY PENNY IT CAN FIND TO BUY AS MANY F35 as possible to have in early 2018.
              Leasing costs money. Money better spent in ensuring as many combat aircrafts as possible are bought for the carriers.
              "It is upon the navy under the providence of God that the safety, honour and welfare of this realm do chiefly attend." - King Charles II

              Comment

              • ppp
                ppp
                Rank 5 Registered User
                • Jul 2008
                • 1331

                Originally posted by Jonesy View Post
                PJ

                I think you fundamentally misunderstand the operational environment here. At present the threat is in the littoral not blue water. Chokepoints, shallows, shoal water etc. You cannot avoid pushing HVU's like amphibs into those waters if you expect to do anything in the way of power projection. There will always be a need for ASW escort in those areas. You can try and do that with 8000 ton DDG's carrying a pair of ASW choppers if you like but, currently, those DDG's are big and noisy. In tight waters they are not always favourite to come out ahead of the game.

                A smaller, more nimble, quieter ship is necessary for those ops. With the DDG standing off providing sensor and aviation support and covering fires. I've long been a fan of our C1 capacity being a DDH built off the T45 design with a big aviation dept for up to 3 Merlins. That would need to be paired up though with a smaller 'inshore' hull though i.e a C2 with a fair-middlin bow sonar and, ideally, a couple of USVs towing CAPTAS NANO style arrays!.

                At present were still a way off from that, so, a very discrete frigate is a key player in the operational scenario that the Navy is set up to undertake.
                IMO that kind of ASW role is best left to a ROV with a sonar, to match silence for silence, though vulnerability of communications is a possible risk factor. Obviously a secondary sonar on the mothership would still be important, if only to provide triangulation.

                Comment

                • Liger30
                  Armed Forces supporter
                  • Jul 2010
                  • 901

                  A sub-hunting ROV does not exist yet. One was in study for the ASW package of the Littoral Combat Ship of the US navy, but it may still fail or be killed off budget (if it has not been already). Then again, it would still operate from an LCS regonfigured to be, in fact, a frigate.

                  Surprise!
                  "It is upon the navy under the providence of God that the safety, honour and welfare of this realm do chiefly attend." - King Charles II

                  Comment

                  • flanker30
                    Rank 5 Registered User
                    • Sep 2009
                    • 517

                    Originally posted by Jonesy View Post
                    ...I've long been a fan of our C1 capacity being a DDH built off the T45 design with a big aviation dept for up to 3 Merlins. ....
                    Like this Japanese Shirane-class destroyer? Carries three SH-60s.

                    Comment

                    • Geoff_B
                      Rank 5 Registered User
                      • Jul 2010
                      • 507

                      Except Japan are replacing those Hybrid destroyers with Hyuga class Escort Cruisers which are in effect what Invincible was originally planned to be !!!.

                      Hopefully the next RFA's we get will have the same avaiation capacity as the Fort Victoria's to ensure we can carry a decent ASW helo element within a task force.

                      G

                      Comment

                      • Geoff_B
                        Rank 5 Registered User
                        • Jul 2010
                        • 507

                        Liger

                        Well from the way Fox said it, he implied their might be something, its quite possible they have already approached and got agreement from our Allies to provide something to get our crews trained in advance of the JCA entering service. As to what and when thats another matter.

                        We still have to train and prepare the crews for Carrier ops and the F-35C just won't be available in numbers or in time for that job so an interim solution is nessessary, and we can't send all the squadron & flight deck crew to do a tour on a US or French Carrier for 18 mths.

                        I'm not sure but the way they are dropping hints without giving answers together with rumours of only 40 F-35C is making me start to wonder if they are might be looking to fill out the airgroup with another type for an interim period untill additional Dave C can be procurred ?. Basically use it to get the training and working practices done, get the carriers operational whilst the F-35C are delivered and brought into service

                        G

                        Comment

                        • Stryker73
                          Rank 5 Registered User
                          • Jun 2010
                          • 274

                          Geoff, I was more under the impression that he said we have sufficient basing rights and overflight rights to cover a gap 'at the moment'

                          Comment

                          • benroethig
                            Rank 5 Registered User
                            • Aug 2010
                            • 487

                            Originally posted by Stryker73 View Post
                            Geoff, I was more under the impression that he said we have sufficient basing rights and overflight rights to cover a gap 'at the moment'
                            Not unless those basing and overfight rights include USS and CVN-

                            Comment

                            • Stryker73
                              Rank 5 Registered User
                              • Jun 2010
                              • 274

                              Don't shoot the messenger!

                              I think it was more like he said we had other 'alternatives' that could cover a gap. The interviewer seemed to buy it anyway.

                              Comment

                              • Liger30
                                Armed Forces supporter
                                • Jul 2010
                                • 901

                                Hopefully the next RFA's we get will have the same avaiation capacity as the Fort Victoria's to ensure we can carry a decent ASW helo element within a task force.
                                The requirement in this sense was clearly stated in what the Navy envisaged for the MARS programme... but what will happen with the whole MARS concept (and with the RFA in itself, admittedly) with the budget mess, is hard to imagine. I guess the Forts will have to service on for loooong time still.

                                Unless they are mothballed like Fort Austin or scrapped in yet a new demented decision, of course. I'm not surprised by anything by now...

                                I think it was more like he said we had other 'alternatives' that could cover a gap. The interviewer seemed to buy it anyway.
                                I bet he must be referring to plans to build an airport on St Helena island:
                                On 22 July 2010, the Secretary of State for International Development, Andrew Mitchell, announced HMG’s intention to finance an airport on St Helena subject to a number of specific conditions. The first three conditions are concerned with technical issues relating to the airport. The fourth condition defines the part that the St Helena Government (SHG) must play. It states that “SHG undertakes to implement the reforms needed to open the island’s economy to inward investment and increased tourism”. In a telephone conference with the Secretary of State for DFID, Andrew Mitchell on 27 July, Elected Members undertook to determine and agree the level of reform needed to meet this obligation.

                                The changes that SHG will deliver to open the Island to investment, grow the economy and get ready for air access will be set out in an MOU to be signed between SHG and DFID.
                                The airport is backed by the MOD which sees it as a very handy help in the eventuality of needing to establish an air bridge to reinforce the Falklands in case of need.
                                A bit weak an argument anyway...

                                Unless he thinks the UK can go anywhere with its bases in Akrotiri, Dhekelia (to be closed? So it was reported at least...) and Gibraltar, which are the "bases around the world" he babbled about, i'm guessing.
                                Last edited by Liger30; 18th October 2010, 14:14.
                                "It is upon the navy under the providence of God that the safety, honour and welfare of this realm do chiefly attend." - King Charles II

                                Comment

                                • flanker30
                                  Rank 5 Registered User
                                  • Sep 2009
                                  • 517

                                  Originally posted by Geoff_B View Post
                                  Except Japan are replacing those Hybrid destroyers with Hyuga class Escort Cruisers which are in effect what Invincible was originally planned to be !!!.

                                  Hopefully the next RFA's we get will have the same avaiation capacity as the Fort Victoria's to ensure we can carry a decent ASW helo element within a task force.

                                  G
                                  Yes, but my point was to show that a hull of similar size to the Type 45 can accommodate three ASW helicopters.

                                  In fact, looking at the Japanese progression, and since helicopters are the main ASW weapon, maybe the new ASW frigate should be a 'through-deck frigate'? :diablo:

                                  And while I agree that the RFAs should be able to carry a significant number of helicopters (and RHIBs or CB90s) - is this blurring the distinction between RN and RFA? - would there not be enough flat-top space in a task force already, either a carrier or an amphib?

                                  Comment

                                  • Liger30
                                    Armed Forces supporter
                                    • Jul 2010
                                    • 901

                                    The RFA ship, when in Task Group, would mostly take its share of helicopters on board more to service them and eventually repair them and allow air ops on the actual warships to continue at full force to ensure the highest possible sortie rate. So, no, i don't think it would be a real blurring.
                                    Besides, RFA Argus may very well never be replaced when she goes, so the other MARS ships will have to take on their shoulders the work of Argus as well. Just as the death of the Joint Casualty Treatment Ship procurement programme in 2005 sparred the acquisition of modular hospital facility for 100 beds to fit into Argus's hangar, plus the increase of available medical facilities on the Forts and such.
                                    "It is upon the navy under the providence of God that the safety, honour and welfare of this realm do chiefly attend." - King Charles II

                                    Comment

                                    • Anixtu
                                      Rank 5 Registered User
                                      • Jul 2008
                                      • 92

                                      Originally posted by flanker30 View Post
                                      And while I agree that the RFAs should be able to carry a significant number of helicopters (and RHIBs or CB90s) - is this blurring the distinction between RN and RFA? - would there not be enough flat-top space in a task force already, either a carrier or an amphib?
                                      ISTR that during recent (well, maybe a few years ago) Harrier-centric operations on CVS it was preferred to transfer Sea King ASACs to the accompanying Fort. RFAs have long been equipped to support and extend ASW helicopter operations. And I mean air weapons magazines, not just big hangars that are handy for maintenance.

                                      Comment

                                      • stokey
                                        Rank 4 Registered User
                                        • Sep 2010
                                        • 11

                                        Originally posted by Liger30 View Post
                                        I so do not believe that.
                                        I guess at the most the UK will beg the US Marines, Spain and Italy to once more deploy their Harriers on HMS Lusty in exercise as it was done already so humiliatingly often when the "unfit for the job" Harriers were used by the RAF from 2002 to 2009 in Afghanistan while Tornados kept playing games back at home in the UK.



                                        Weird that the RAF now cries about the limits of the Harriers after years and years of sterling service in theatre and so many happy reports from troops all too glad to have Harriers at close call nearby.
                                        What were all the Tornados doing back then, if the RAF favored them for the role...?

                                        Also, now that the RAF wants to save Tornado, the stated desire to deploy Typhoon in Afghanistan in their place in 2011 has VANISHED.
                                        Good job RAF! Not "junior" service, but CHILDISH service. Everything is fair in order to see the Fleet Air Arm without jets.
                                        The tornado fleet was supporting British and American forces in Iraq whilst the harrier was in afganisatan.
                                        to call the RAF childish is rich when Admirals want other services fund their aircraft!! The harrier has already cost the RAF their Jaguar fleet at the last defence review, so why should the RAF give up its entire Tornado force instead of only one frontline harrier squadron??

                                        Comment

                                        • Liger30
                                          Armed Forces supporter
                                          • Jul 2010
                                          • 901

                                          Not really true, since it was the RAF which tried in every way along the years to kill off the Fleet Air Arm and ultimately obtained the Sea Harrier death and the Joint Harrier Force agreement that allowed the RAF to claw control of the airplanes at sea, as it had always wanted.
                                          I don't think the navy would be unhappy by being given back the possibility to maintain its own air force, you know...

                                          The tornado fleet was supporting British and American forces in Iraq whilst the harrier was in afganisatan.
                                          And the whole mighty fleet of some 7 frontline squadrons back then was unable to detach 8 planes to Afghanistan...?
                                          Should we really believe it...?

                                          I don't.
                                          "It is upon the navy under the providence of God that the safety, honour and welfare of this realm do chiefly attend." - King Charles II

                                          Comment

                                          Unconfigured Ad Widget

                                          Collapse

                                           

                                          Working...
                                          X